Kate's Apron

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

It doesnt mater what type of investigation it is. the facts and the evidence are the important factors, and as I have stated some of the evidence you and others seek to rely on as I have said before is untested and as it stands unsafe and cannot be totally relied on for that reason.

In the sense that the evidence itself doesn't depend upon what one is doing with it, that's true. The evidence set is what it is. What we can do, however, is dependent upon things outside of the evidence set, such as what year it is.

Given the time difference between the events and now, we no longer can re-interview, re-examine, or re-collect evidence. Many of the investigative tools of an active police investigation are impossible to perform. Those are not our tools.

The goal of a police investigation is also to secure a conviction, in a court of law. But that is not our goal.

What we now have to accept is that the evidence we have is it, as it is. Our goal is to make sense of what we have, and to interpret it as best we can, knowing full well that no interpretation can, or should, be viewed as 100% correct. We can't get to the specifics of the events, but to some extent we can narrow things down to categories of explanations.

Her wearing of the apron is a category of explanation, as there are many specifics we cannot know (the exact detail of how it was cut, the exact dimensions of the apron, the style of the apron, and so forth). When we switch to the alternative category of explanations, the "not wearing an apron", the evidence we do have either directly contradicts that, or requires the speculation of details for which we have no evidence.

Would it be enough for court? of course, not, in a court of law we would need those details. Would a defense like you're offering about not wearing an apron work? No, it would be easily demonstrated by a prosecutor that your explanation is so self-contradictory that it cannot be said to constitute reasonable doubt given the evidence we have. Now, if it were an active police investigation and you could go out and actually test your ideas, and in the process found some real evidence that could not be easily explained if she was wearing an apron, then fine, you would have a case. But you can't do that, so you do not have a case.

Now I have a question for you.

You say above the evidence "is untested and as it stands unsafe and cannot be totally relied on for that reason", and since we're all working with the same evidence set (though you cull it quite severely), why is the evidence unsafe when someone like me interprets it, but apparently rock solid when you do?

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

They are asked to read it first

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Those who can, you mean.
You don't have to pass a reading test to be a witness, or a juror for that matter.

[Wickerman]

I am a poet and do a lot of open mics on Zoom these days with fellow writers from around the world. Even when I read my own poems displaying them on screen using "Screen Share" I know I don't always read the identical words that I had written. So you can't tell me that even if the witness signs a statement they would know exactly what they testified to.

Hey Chris, nice to see you over this side of the fence, a rare treat

[Herlock Sholmes]

You need to stop being pedantic I see you are still struggling to find excuses not accept what is fact.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And you certainly don’t struggle to find excuses Trevor ax you could write a book on them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You need to stop being pedantic I see you are still struggling to find excuses not accept what is fact.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m not being pedantic Trevor. You can’t possibly believe that when a witness signs for a statement after being questioned for say half an hour that he’s signing to say that it was a word perfect statement? So it’s far from impossible that there couldn’t have been small errors. Especially one’s of wording and phrasing. You can’t treat something as error free just because someone signs a transcript.

[Trevor Marriott]

And then are they tested to see if they can recall the exact wording of what they’d said compared to what had been written?

You need to stop being pedantic I see you are still struggling to find excuses not accept what is fact.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Exactly Herlock.

When you're in court and the officer says "quiet", you go quiet, when he says "stand", you stand, when he says "sign here", you sign here.

You follow procedures because most people don't want to be singled out, it's quite often their first experience.

The witness does what they are told.

Questions Wick.

At what point in the proceedings were witnesses handed statements to sign?

If their statements had to be written into long hand does that mean they had to hang around waiting for it to be completed?

Did the witnesses have to wait in a certain area to prevent them from just walking out before they’d signed?

If a witness couldn’t read when and where would the statement have been read back to them? Surely not in the Inquest room?

[Herlock Sholmes]

They are asked to read it first

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And then are they tested to see if they can recall the exact wording of what they’d said compared to what had been written?

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly Herlock.

When you're in court and the officer says "quiet", you go quiet, when he says "stand", you stand, when he says "sign here", you sign here.

You follow procedures because most people don't want to be singled out, it's quite often their first experience.

The witness does what they are told.

See previous post for my reply

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I am a poet and do a lot of open mics on Zoom these days with fellow writers from around the world. Even when I read my own poems displaying them on screen using "Screen Share" I know I don't always read the identical words that I had written. So you can't tell me that even if the witness signs a statement they would know exactly what they testified to.

They are asked to read it first

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Its possible that a witness could sign for a statement as being correct but it’s ludicrous to suggest that he or she would be signing to say that it was an exact transcription of what he or she had said. If the witness signed they were saying that the general facts were correct but there could have been some difference in wording that he or she felt was insignificant but us, looking into it 130 years later, might see as relevant.

Exactly Herlock.

When you're in court and the officer says "quiet", you go quiet, when he says "stand", you stand, when he says "sign here", you sign here.

You follow procedures because most people don't want to be singled out, it's quite often their first experience.

The witness does what they are told.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its possible that a witness could sign for a statement as being correct but it’s ludicrous to suggest that he or she would be signing to say that it was an exact transcription of what he or she had said. If the witness signed they were saying that the general facts were correct but there could have been some difference in wording that he or she felt was insignificant * but us, looking into it 130 years later, might see as relevant.

So in that respect, everything written in connection with the case is ‘unsafe’ to some extent. We use our own judgment in assessing them. We should simply try to dismiss things because they are inconvenient to some theory.

* Ill add….or that they didn’t notice when reading……especially relevant went considering the very poor or non-existent levels of education that some of the witnesses had. I might even further add that many of these witnesses would have been extremely nervous in this situation and would have simply wanted to get out of there. Would they have felt confident enough to have challenged what they had read or had been read to them?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you dont understand in order for you and others to satsify your beliefs, you should be asking yourself those questions and not readliy accepting the evidence as conclusive, and after you have asked yourself those questions a normal reasonable person who is unbiased must agree that the evidence is unsafe, and the evidence from the mortuary should also raise concerns about the reliabilty of those officers statements, because there is no evidence to show that she was wearing an apron when the body was stripped

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not you then.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am a poet and do a lot of open mics on Zoom these days with fellow writers from around the world. Even when I read my own poems displaying them on screen using "Screen Share" I know I don't always read the identical words that I had written. So you can't tell me that even if the witness signs a statement they would know exactly what they testified to.

Exactly Chris. It would take a photographic memory if witnesses were signing to say “that’s exactly what I said and in exactly the way that I said it.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

It doesnt mater what type of investigation it is. the facts and the evidence are the important factors, and as I have stated some of the evidence you and others seek to rely on as I have said before is untested and as it stands unsafe and cannot be totally relied on for that reason.

To clarify my statement, if this matter was the subject of a trial and I know its not but these have to be considered with regards to the police officers and Wilkinson and the police officers who gave sworn evidence that they saw her wearing an apron, These statements form the backbone of the arugments from you and others to show that she was wearing an apron. Although this is not a trial you and the others still have to ask yourslelves the same questions as if it were a trial to ascertain whether or not you, can safely rely on that evidence.

There are questions which would be asked in a court and should be asked by you and others based on the inquest testimony in coming to a sensible and unbiased view

Firstly the inquest did not take place until Oct 5th 5 days after the murder. They gave their signed statements at that time I would challenge their evidence as to their recollection of events 5 days previous to the point of asking these questions

Ill answer as George Hutt.

1. How can you be sure she was wearing an apron when you last saw her?

Because I’m not blind.

2. And the most important question "Whats was unusual about the apron you saw her wearing for you to identify the apron piece before you as being worn by the deceased?"

What I actually said was…

“I noticed she was wearing an apron. I believe the one produced was the one she was wearing when she left the Station.”

I said this, very obviously, because I didn’t expect that someone had slipped in another apron to try and trick me. There was nothing to lead me to believe that it wasn’t the one that she was wearing.

3. "Did you make an notes at the time or as soon as practicable of the events that night or are you today speaking from memory?"

Im speaking from memory about a woman that I can recall vividly because she was paralytic and a bit of a character.

Pc Robinson is catergoric in his testimony "I belive the apron produced was the one she was wearing" that is an unsafe statement one white apeon is the same as another unless he was able to answer question 2 above his evidence is unsafe to rely on.

Exactly as I said for Hutt. He had no reason to believe that it was another apron.

The same applies to Pc Hutt who says the same "I belive the one produced was the one she was wearing"

Dealt with above.

There was never one produced the two pieces were produced separtely by Dr Phillips and Dr Brown, There is no evidence to show that the two pieces were ever joined by the police to make up a full apron and produced in court as one.

And Brown, who matched them up didn’t mention any piece being missing. Proving categorically that no piece was missing.

All in all in my professional opinion there is sufficient evidence to cast a major doubt about the testimony of those witnesses,

And in unbiased opinion we have no reason at all to cast any doubts on these 3 witnesses.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If these 3 are unsafe then every single witness in the case is unsafe.